I love London. It's so wonderfully dirty.

(SPOILERS) There might be a superior Krays movie to be made
by distilling the best elements of The
Krays and Legend into one new
picture, but it would still be lacking when it comes to what made them
infamous; their criminal enterprise itself. Peter Medak’s film of Philip
Ridley’s screenplay has no time for the glossy vision of ‘60s London Brian
Helgeland pursues, and makes great capital from emphasising the twins’
relationship with their mother (Billie Whitelaw). It also has more of a sense
of “what led to this”, rudimentary as it is, rather than introducing us to the
brothers fully formed. What it doesn’t have, however, is Tom Hardy.

Which isn’t to say there aren’t good things resulting from
the casting of Martin (Reggie) and Gary (Ronnie) Kemp. No matter how good Hardy
is (and he’s very good), there’s always a sense that his playing both brothers
is a gimmick, one that further undermines the reality of Helgeland’s already
superficial and swanky East End. You can get away with that sort of thing in
your classic twin movie, as the absurdity of the doppelganger is often key to
the plot. It might be argued that’s part and parcel of the “Legend” title, an interrogation of where
myth and reality meet. If so, Helgeland fails spectacularly.

With the Kemps, they may not be in Hardy’s league as
performers, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t mostly serviceable. What they do have, and this can’t be
under-emphasised, is the natural facility of being actual brothers. It informs their
scenes, and means there’s a shorthand that needs no overstatement (something
Helgeland is repeatedly guilty of). On a more practical level too, when they’re
both in a scene together they’re both
in a scene together, and the viewer doesn’t start thinking about trick shots or
become distracted from the moment.

The picture, which can be found on YouTube, misses a number of elements that Legend at least picks up the slack on
(although Legend frustratingly grasps
pieces of plot and never expands them enough to satisfy). So we don’t have
Reggie’s stint in prison. Most crucially, there’s no Leslie Payne (and so one
of the sources of conflict between the brothers is diffused) and so there train
of events leading to the murder of Jack The Hat McVitie (a magnificently seedy,
derelict Tom Bell) is absent. We see nothing of the police investigation, and
rather substantially Lord Boothby also gets no attention. This means that, when
the murders of McVitie and George Cornell (Steven Berkoff) occur, its
positioned as something of a “the brothers clean house moment” (the
premeditated nature of McVitie’s demise is more accurate than in Legend, while both pictures make a point
of feeding Reggie’s behaviour into the recent suicide – or was it – of
Frances).

As noted though, both pictures are frustratingly low on the
brothers’ crime and the causes of the brothers’ crime. The Krays was released in the same year as Goodfellas, and Legend is
clearly (partly) influenced by Scorsese’s classic, but neither is able to work
that kind of smoothly confident depiction of the ins and outs of the gangster
trade into its fabric. We have little idea of how widely their empire
stretches, what they own, what they do, and how they operate. The odd scene of
them climbing out the back of a van and firing machine guns in a bar isn’t
enough, nor is the meeting with their American backers (this one doesn’t have
Chazz Palminteri, or Ronnie’s humorous confessional, but it scores for the
downright peculiarity of the mobster presenting Ronnie with a gold snake while
all he has in return is a framed photo of the extended Kray family).

The violence in the picture is more starkly effective than in
Helgeland’s movie. You wouldn’t call Legend
exactly sanitised, but it lacks real impact; even the murder of Jack “The Hat” seems
to have been built around the reactions of the (invented) onlookers and the
pay-off line to Ronnie. Peter Medak has attacked most genres as a director,
with varying degrees of success (he’s nearly 80 and still working, recently
contributing to Hannibal). The year
after The Krays he depicted another
famous criminal case, that of Derek Bentley in Let Him Have It and went on to contribute to Homicide: Life on the Street. He has directed lightweight TV fare
like Hart to Hart and fantasy such as
The Twilight Zone and Carnivale. I think his dalliances with
horror (The Changeling, the ill-met Species II) might be most informing of
how he depicts the criminal world, though. He isn’t willing to soft pedal underworld
behaviour, or give it a sheen the way Helgeland does. It’s serious, brutal
unpleasantness, and one of the first things we see the adult brothers do is
etch out a Chelsea Smile, something Helgeland ignores completely.

Ridley (well-known as an idiosyncratic director in his own
right; it might have been interesting to see his movie of his own script, one
with more than enough offbeat imagery as it is, from monochrome swans to
crocodiles to snakes) and Medak are also big on the weird duality between the
brothers, lending their acts a strangely sinister “evil twins” vibe (there’s
also a distracting cameo from Stephen “Blakey” Lewis during this section). With
early scenes where they answer in unison in class, this could be leading to a
supernatural rather than a crime flick. Michael Kamen’s score is particularly
effective in this regard, steering events of kilter, as if the brothers’
reality is constantly spiralling from their grasp.

Katie Hardie’s Frances isn’t central to the movie in the
same way as Emily Browning in Legend,
but if anything her sad plight is the more effective for not being privy to her
inner thoughts. The claustrophobia of the prison she enters when she marries
Reggie is palpable. There’s none of the triteness and sentimentalising of
Helegland, and instead we feel the crushing terror of someone divested of any
freewill or personality. Legend
depicts Frances’ isolation through the present of a car that lies abandoned
because Reggie never teaches her to drive. The
Krays gives us a more potent scene where Reggie buys her dresses for each
day of the year. She protests that she likes to do her own shopping to which
Reggie cheerfully but chillingly responds ”It’s
not as if you’ve go any money of your own, is it?”

Ronnie’s relationship with/antagonism towards Frances is
marginalised, but there’s a fine minimalist stroke at the outset that speaks
more loudly than any amount of heavy-handed dialogue. The first time Reggie
meets Frances, Ronnie sees them across the club. Becoming enraged, he picks a
fight with a patron who is quickly on the receiving end of a Chelsea Smile (“I’m going to make you laugh for the rest of
your life”).

The major difference, though, is the way Ridley makes the devoted
matriarchy of the brothers’ existence central (older brother Charlie also gets
a look in, unilike in Legend).
Whitelaw is quite superb as Violet Kray, steely, doting and no-nonsense. She isn’t
dismissive of Frances the way Violet is in Legend,
but it’s completely clear where her daughter-in-law stands in importance. Legend really misses not having the boys
holding their meetings at their mother’s house, with the informality of her tea
and biscuits and presiding naturalism towards the gang bosses who just happen
to be her offspring. It was a mistake for Helgeleand to diminish Violet’s role,
presumably as a response to potential comparisons with this picture.

That said, there probably is too much indulgence the family at the expense of other elements.
What we have would work if the picture lasted another hour, but as noted,
there’s a sense the “life” gets short shrift. Violet’s strength is emblazoned,
from removing Ronnie from hospital when he has diphtheria, to her announcement,
in response to their National Service, “No
one takes my boys away from me”. The natural culmination of this sees useless
husband Charlie (Alfred Lynch) threaten her and the boys rising as one either
side of their mum. Charlie backs off.

But the emphasis on “Men,
they know nothing”, while yielding individually powerful moments is more
the heavy-handed tack one would expect from Helgeland. The boys’ young life is amid
a household of women (and Reggie’s White Cliffs honeymoon is interrupted by the
death of one of these nurturers). There’s a powerful scene – the
sort of thing that could easily have ended up on the cutting room floor as
superfluous – where Rose (Susan, sister of Mick, Fleetwood) recounts the
horrors of the Blitz (seen earlier for the kids as a magical time of tales of their
granddad in the Underground recounting tales of Jack the Ripper), and the
torments of men; “Bullets and dead babies”
before recalling a protracted labour where she had to “cut the baby’s head off to save the mother’s life”, who then died
anyway.

The gangland aspect is best personified by Steven Berkoff’s
Cornell, who is given significantly more screen time than Shane Attwooll’s
equivalent in Legend. Just by the
mere fact of being Berkoff he has more presence (he’s also shot through the
pimple on his forehead, making it something of a bizarre target).Berkoff’s Cornell is a worthy loud-mouthed
foe, mocking and undaunted even in the face of a gun pointed at his head. And,
while Sam Spruell is very strong in Legend,
Bell’s degraded McVitie is conjured with vile disarray that informs
indifference to his demise; the scene in which he gets annoyed with his
girlfriend for calling him bald and pushes her out of a moving car (her back is
broken) is a concise a piece of character work as we need.

Reggie and Ronnie here are more symbiotic than in Legend, where Hardy employs – in
particular with the amusingly exaggerated Ronnie – various actorly
extravagances to distinguish them. The question arising there, though, is how
they ever amounted to anything when it seemed Ronnie constantly put spanners in
the works. Here, his psychosis is less invasive, so their relationship is more
intimate. Consequently, it’s more believable when he goads his brother to
finish off McVitie. Helgeland achieves dramatic conflict between the two, but
it’s at the cost of seeing them as a united force to be reckoned with.

The picture ends, appropriately to its theme (is there a
subtext here that the non-traditional family unit yields psychopaths?), has the
brothers attend Violet’s 1982 funeral in handcuffs. It lends The Krays a sense of completeness and purpose
Legend lacks (that picture has to
carry on after it’s main female character has died). In general, The Krays is a more successful picture
than Legend, although it is nevertheless respectable
rather than remarkable, with the odd narrative or visual twist that stands out.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Vampire Academy (2014) My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on
the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct
Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire
Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if
you added vampires to Heathers, you
would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately
inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from
Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish
leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to
surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young
Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel
storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation
crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like,
hoping…

The Avengers 4.3: The Master Minds The Master Minds hitches
its wagon to the not uncommon Avengers
trope of dark deeds done under the veil of night. We previously encountered it
in The Town of No Return, but Robert
Banks Stewart (best known for Bergerac,
but best known genre-wise for his two Tom Baker Doctor Who stories; likewise, he also penned only two teleplays for
The Avengers) makes this episode more
distinctive, with its mind control and spycraft, while Peter Graham Scott, in
his third contribution to the show on the trot, pulls out all the stops,
particularly with a highly creative climactic fight sequence that avoids the usual
issue of overly-evident stunt doubles.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington
2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more
money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more
developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally,
crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the
Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the
universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the
original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on
first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce
a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity
to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as
uproariously as they migh…

Altered Carbon Season One
(SPOILERS) Well, it looks
good, even if the visuals are absurdly indebted to Blade Runner. Ultimately, though, Altered Carbon is a disappointment. The adaption of Richard
Morgan’s novel comes armed with a string of well-packaged concepts and futuristic
vernacular (sleeves, stacks, cross-sleeves, slagged stacks, Neo-Cs), but
there’s a void at its core. It singularly fails use the dependable detective
story framework to explore the philosophical ramifications of its universe –
except in lip service – a future where death is impermanent, and even botches the
essential goal of creating interesting lead characters (the peripheral ones,
however, are at least more fortunate).

Dreamscape (1984)
(SPOILERS) I wasn’t really au fait with movies’ box office performance until the end of the ‘80s, so I think I had an idea that Dennis Quaid (along with Jeff Bridges) was a much bigger star than he was, just on the basis of the procession of cool movies he showed up in (The Right Stuff, Enemy Mine, Innerspace, D.O.A.) The truth was, the public resisted all attempts to make him The Next Big Thing, not that his sly-grinned, cocky persona throughout the decade would lead you to believe his dogged lack of success had any adverse effect on his mood. Dreamscape was one of his early leading-man roles, and if it’s been largely forgotten, it also inherits a welcome cult status, not only through being pulpy and inventive on a fairly meagre budget, but by being pretty good to boot. It holds up.

The X-Files 11.1: My Struggle III
(SPOILERS) Good grief. Have things become so terminal for Chris Carter
that he has to retcon his own crap from the previous season, rather than the
(what he perceived as) crap written by others? Carter, of course, infamously
pretended the apocalyptic ending of Millennium
Season Two never happened, upset by the path Glen Morgan and James Wong, left
to their own devices, took with his baby. Their episode was one of the greats
of that often-ho-hum series, so the comedown was all the unkinder as a result. In
My Struggle III, at least, Carter’s
rewriting something that wasn’t very good in the first place. Only, he replaces
it with something that is even worse in the second.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied
plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable
folly of the panned Pan, I was struck
by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters,
makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed
illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such
investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston
Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely
puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II
tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

The X-Files 11.2: This
(SPOILERS) Glen Morgan returns with a really good idea, certainly one
with much more potential than his homelessness tract Home Again in Season 10, but seems to give up on its eerier
implications, and worse has to bash it round the head to fit the season’s
“arc”. Nevertheless, he’s on very comfortable ground with the Mulder-Scully
dynamic in This, who get to spend
almost the entire episode in each other’s company and might be on the best form
here since the show came back, give or take a Darin.

The Shape of Water (2017)
(SPOILERS) The faithful would have you believe it never went
away, but it’s been a good decade since Guillermo del Toro’s mojo was in full
effect, and his output since (or lack thereof: see the torturous wilderness
years of At the Mountains of Madness
and The Hobbit), reflected through
the prism of his peak work Pan’s
Labyrinth, bears the hallmarks of a serious qualitative tumble. He put his
name to stinker TV show The Strain,
returned to movies with the soulless Pacific
Rim and fashioned flashy but empty gothic romance Crimson Peak (together his weakest pictures, and I’m not forgetting
Mimic). The Shape of Water only seems to underline what everyone has been
saying for years, albeit previously confined to his Spanish language pictures: that
the smaller and more personal they are, the better. If his latest is at times a
little too wilfully idiosyncratic,
it’s also a movie where you can nevertheless witness it’s creator’s creativity
flowing untrammelled once mo…

Split (2016) (SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based
filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of
only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several
of his pictures, including his last, The
Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low
budget horror arena. Split continues
that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to
bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically
uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t
always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage
girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best
intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes
and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the
end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…